Alex Salmond published his White Paper on Scottish independence. On leaving the Union, Scotland would be richer, happier, fairer and generally better, the paper argues. The English yoke lifted from their shoulders, Scots would be free to season their porridge with milk and honey, all of it provided by a beneficent and cash-rich state.

The credibility of those claims is, of course, disputed. Those disputes, however, largely take place north of the Border. The English, it must be said, are little interested in the question of Scottish independence.

That’s curious, because this debate concerns their country and its future too, but then not everyone has this Briefing’s advantage of a Northumbrian upbringing: there’s nothing quite like watching sheep wandering idly back and forth across the Border to make you reflect on the gravity of turning that Border into an international frontier.

At one level, English indifference is rational, because the English don’t have a vote in this referendum: why should they care?

But what are the consequences of that indifference? What message does that send to politicians? Would a mainstream political party that advocated Scottish independence to English voters be punished or rewarded by the English electorate?

Some Tories certainly believe that they would be better off without the Scots. At times in recent years, it has felt as if only David Cameron’s principled stand for the Union stands between the Tories and an England First policy.

That stand will see the party and the nation through next year’s referendum when, the polls suggest, the Union will be endorsed. A No vote would set back the cause of Scottish independence for many years, but probably not end it: ideas, especially romantic ones, are very hard to kill.

So even if the Union survives Mr Salmond’s challenge, more tests surely lie ahead. And when they do, how will Mr Cameron’s successors respond? Perhaps, just perhaps, the greatest threat to this United Kingdom will eventually lies not in Scottish passion but English indifference.

The Crown Prosecution Service charged a serving police officer with misconduct in a public office over the Plebgate affair that cost Andrew Mitchell his job. However, it brought no charges against the officer directly involved in Mr Mitchell’s fateful F-word exchange at the Downing Street gate; nor will that officer face disciplinary proceedings. Mr Mitchell and his friends insisted the outcome was positive, and vowed to take other legal action against those they say have wronged him. That in itself is telling: the final victory Mr Mitchell had dreamt of still eludes him. And as a result, his return to high office still seems a distant prospect. Details here.

TESSA FOR MAYOR?

Dame Tessa Jowell expressed reservations about her party's proposed mansion tax. The former Olympics minister – who is the leading Labour candidate to run as London mayor in 2016 – told a Progress event that the policy risked forcing elderly people who are asset-rich and income-poor to "move out of their family homes". How long before she announces her mayoral ambitions?

BIG SOCIETY SIGHTED

Whatever happened to the Big Society? Turns out it's alive and well in the Coalition's controversial planning reforms, according to Nick Boles. The planning minister admitted that the concept of the Big Society had initially been "mocked" by some people but said that it has now "become real" through new planning rules. Full story here.

WHEN WE SAID…

…that the Government's HS2 Hybrid Bill and environmental statement was 50,000 words long – we did of course mean 50,000 pages. Thanks to all who pointed this out.

TOP TWEET

Ian Austin MP offers an insight into the mind of the Lib Dem Home Office Minister

Bizarrely Norman Baker said he's not read the book he wrote about David Kelly & won't say if he still believes in crazy conspiracy theories

FIVE MUST-READS

Robert Colvilesays Salmond is using the machinery of the British state against the Union